Evidence of meeting #124 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clause.
A video is available from Parliament.
11 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
I appreciate that feedback. That concern with the disability accessibility act is where we—
11 a.m.
Liberal
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
“Oral” will include everything.
You can't give one specific term for every...not even to listen, not even to speak and not even to see. Orally using other instruments...to express to the tribunal.
11 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
I don't want to get too involved but because we're dealing with a disability accessibility act, we don't want to be very specific on “oral”. I think that's where the confusion is coming from, even if it may be a legal term. That's great input. I appreciate that.
Ms. Falk.
11 a.m.
Conservative
Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I find that comment a little ironic because we had witnesses here who couldn't speak and they signed. That was their language.
This is obviously a greater problem if our only two definitions are “oral” and “written”. This is much deeper and bigger than this act.
I'm really concerned about that, because, as I said yesterday, to have this pass and look 20 years down the road and have people not being able to access because we didn't do our job here would do an injustice to people who need accessibility.
11 a.m.
South Surrey—White Rock, Lib.
If we were to replace “allow oral” with “accommodate or accept arguments” that would accommodate arguments that he or she considers necessary for the purpose of the appeal.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Maybe we could get some clarification from the legislative clerk regarding their opinion on whether “hear” suffices for “accept”.
11 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Thus far they don't believe that “oral” is sufficient to include everything. The feeling is that “oral” is specific.
11 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
They don't want to give advice on that. It's a legal question, not a procedural one, but we do have another suggestion on the table.
Mr. Sangha.
11 a.m.
Liberal
Ramesh Sangha Liberal Brampton Centre, ON
As Mr. Hogg says, it can be “oral, with accommodations, and written”.
11:05 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
We have a couple of different suggestions. Mr. Hogg had put a bit of a change forward.
Do you have a new suggestion?
11:05 a.m.
South Surrey—White Rock, Lib.
If we were to take out “oral” and just say “allow arguments”, make that plural, then I think that's probably the simplest way of addressing it and allowing the intent that Ms. Falk put forward.
11:05 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
Thank you very much. That was a roundabout way of getting to where we started.
11:05 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
That's right. That's the most important part. It's a huge leap.
11:05 a.m.
The Vice-Chair Mr. John Barlow
I will call the vote on reference 10151332.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you, everyone. That was a good discussion.
We now move to amendment LIB-52. That was put forward by Mr. Ruimy.